Musings from Enoch - Book I

Well, I have finally begun my study of the Pseudepigripha. This is a monumental undertaking for me, and one that I wish will merit insights into the Bible that I have been struggling with for quite some time. Some of my primary concerns are: What were the varying beliefs about resurrection? What was the Jewish eschatology? What did the figure Son of Man mean? Son of God? What about pre-existence and angels? If an angel were "incarante" would they be held to the same resurrection and a normal person? And so forth... These questions have been spinning around in my head since I have been delving into the new world of higher criticism, and they hold some fundamental repercussions concerning Christian foundations. So without further ado here is my analysis of the first part of the book of Enoch...

 Enoch begins by reinterpreting the protology and cosmology according to the new world they were exposed to during the Exile. In the diaspora Jews were exposed to pagan beliefs that challenged and inspired their own spirituality and consequently these new beliefs had to be integrated into the Jewish paradigm. Angels, demons, spiritual warfare, oppression, and living a downtrodden life while being elected. These new realities are introduced through the narrative of Enoch.

The author of Enoch has masterfully used the story of Noah to reinterpret the origins of humanity. Enoch was

an antediluvian prophet who was "taken" to be with God. Thus the author was able to put Enoch in an interesting position. Jews during the exile began to believe that the world would soon come under the judgment of God and so they could look back to a time when God's judgment came upon the earth to construct a new paradigm where God's judgment would come in the future. 

The first verse reveals a possible eschatology that as Christians we may not be aware of. God would remove the wicked from the earth so that the righteous can dwell on it in the blessing of God. The typical Christian eschatology is just about the reverse of this. In Christianity God removes the righteous so the earth can be condemned with the wicked and then the righteous can come back to a new earth. This possible eschatology has given some a good reason to think that the verses in Matthew 24 actually refer to this other possible eschatology rather then what has become the standard Christian eschatology. So when it speak of two men being in the field and one is taken. The one taken is the wicked one and NOT the righteous one that many assume to be the case. The key indicator to this is that Jesus says it will be like in the days of Noah.

In chapter 7 of Enoch he begins to describe the "giants" that came from the union of women and angels and it seems like the author might be describing characteristics which they found in their rulers in the diaspora. The giants were oppressive and embodied injustice. Prophecy and eschatology were often used as Jewish methods to speak about social issues of their day. An oppressive ruler could be cast in a religious sense as an anti-Christ. Early Christians also faced oppressive rulers which could be a reason why they adopted this same kind of apocalyptic language.

In chapter 9 of Enoch it mentions how the dead will rise. "They will bring their suit" to the gates of heaven. This is an interesting phrase that I am puzzled about. In chapter 22 it mentions this "suit" again, and it seems to suggest that it is the righteous who possess this "suit" and the wicked will be destroyed. For all intents and purposes this resurrection is given to the already dead and it will be for the righteous dead. 

Enoch 10 has an important verse in it which is just about a direct quote from Revelation 20:10 that describes the torment in hell that the fallen angels will suffer. This verse in Revelation is one of the only verses that actually speaks of hell as a place of eternal torment, and if there was a cultural predisposition to refer to hell in such a manner then we might be able to conclude that such a verse is only mentioned symbollically and not literally. The verse in 20:10 bears similarities to the Noahic covenant, anyways. It speaks of "day and night" a significant reference in the Jewish mind which tracked the passing of time from "night to day". The reference of "day and night" is a sign of the firmament being dropped and the day and night skies being made visible. Thus, I believe the Revelation 20:10 verse is more about the social and political realities that God was going to change forever, rather then about people being tormented for all eternity. This was apocalyptic language of the time.

There is also reference to the tree of life, and in that passage there is another reference to the tree of wisdom. Enoch calls it the tree of wisdom, but it is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Just like in Revelation, one day we will eat from the tree of life and live forever.

In Enoch 14 it mentions tongues of fire which surround the Temple of God in heaven. This again can give us insight into the mentality of the early church concerning it origins. This also places a context to refer to the early churches distinguishing the tongues of fire with the ability to speak in tongues, which is a reversal of the Tower of Babel narrative. Since, early Jewish eschatology seems rooted in the Noahic narrative it seems likely that the multitude of languages would have to be overcome for God's kingdom to be established on earth. So tongues of fire and speaking in tongues can be seen as signs of God's Kingdom being established in the Jewish mind.

Enoch 15 comes to explain how demons came to exist. The giants who died lost their bodies, but their spirits had no place to go. Their spirits belonged in heaven, but they were banished from heaven. They did not belong to the earth (human souls sank below the earth and were seen as part of the earth) so they longed to be back in bodies or to cause torment to others. Interestingly enough, this does give us a formula by which we can speculate about angelic incarnated beings whose bodies die. Enoch says that their spirits go to heaven. This may or may not refer to a possible belief in resurrection for Jesus, but it does set a precedent.

Then Enoch goes on to describe the various levels of heaven and the after-life. There are places where the fallen angels will go. Places for the wicked who die and places for the righteous who die. 

That is just about all for the first book. It establishes a protology in which an eschatology can be formulated. Later Enoch will elaborate in eschatology and the end of the world. It will be interesting to see if it connects with his protology as I believe it will.

Why I am no longer a fundamentalist - Part V: The Unified Experience

We cannot turn back the clock. We are stuck in the modern world. Sticking our head in the sand like the fundamentalist cannot produce a unified experience. Putting our head in the clouds like the moralizers of Liberal Protestantism cannot produce a unified experience either. We have to have genuine religion in order to be a unified person. We cannot reduce faith to moral conviction. In our postmodern world it is generally accepted that man needs spiritual nourishment. What I am proposing is that for the Christian our spirituality should unify us as a person with our faith. I think that the Higher Criticism of the Bible through the structure of Neo-Orthodoxy can do this.

What do I mean by a unified experience? Fundamentalists look for a unified experience by claiming that their beliefs are similar to those of the early believers. They use their beliefs about the Bible to unite themselves with a perception of what they believe is ultimately important in their spiritual lives. This is a common religious practice, and one that I do not deny. I seek a unified experience as well, and I think many people do not understand the unifying experience that can happen if we change the way we read the Bible. It makes sense that if we change our method of interpretation then our unifying experience of the Bible must change as well. It makes sense that many would appear resistant to this change, thinking that maybe they are loosing a part of themselves, because the unifying experience integrates itself into our meaning-structure. But I assure you that this is not the case. Not only does Higher Criticism offer a valid unifying experience, I believe it offers one that is more effective then fundamentalism.

The fundamentalist focuses his unifying experience upon his orthodoxy. The Liberal Protestant focuses his unifying experience on orthopraxis. The Neo-Orthodox is able to blend the two together. For the fundamentalist it is important to believe what the early believers, believed. For the Liberals it is important to act like the early believers. For the Neo-Orthodox it is important to be like the early believers. Fundamentalists give attention to an object. It is an object of belief. It is a "what" not a "who". Liberals give attention to a behavior. It is subjective with no content. It is a "who" with no soul. Neo-Orthodox give attention to what the early believers were like and how we can imitate their lives in our modern world. It possess an object and a subject.

Neo-Orthodoxy seeks a unifying experience by reading the Bible like the early believers read the Bible and understanding it in our modern world, like the early believers understood it in their "modern" context. All interpretation is re-interpretation when it comes to religious texts. The Neo-Orthodox believes that Higher Criticism can best engage the believer in the same, or similar, process that the early believers engaged in when they read the scripture, and that is a meditative process.

Meditation is not a rational endeavor. It is not about compartmentalizing or dividing up themes and models. To meditate upon scripture is to absorb it into yourself, to make it a part of your identity without it entering into your rational faculties. The early believers meditated upon scripture in order to fuse it into their lives without the mess of rational and practical considerations. This is most confirmed by the ancient practice of lectio divina, which is the earliest known practice of how early Christians read the Bible, but we know from the Old Testament itself that meditation was major practice in ancient times of understanding Scripture.

When I say that meditation is not a rational endeavor I mean that in a particular manner as it concerns the Western practice of reason. Meditation does not follow any propositional or syllogistic reasoning pattern. It is not about premises and conclusions. It is simply about absorbing the information. Repeating it to yourself over and over again, and contemplating upon the various connections the object of your meditation creates, and when these connections reveal the inner workings of your life as it compares to the scripture you resolve in prayer to model your life by those patterns. The standard is the Bible, but the application emerges from a union of meditation and reflection.

Modern man has a difficult time connecting with the meditative process. We desire to grasp and understand the objects of our attention. To simply accept and absorb information seems elementary, juvenile, or weak minded. Fundamentalism is superficial and objective. It is far removed from the meditative process. But Higher Criticism does open us up to an experience that is similar. Higher Criticism lays bare the content of Scripture. It removes the impossible elements that cause our mental defenses to reject it and allows the message to penetrate our minds, making it able to become a part of our contemplative process. Man cannot contemplate on miracles and wonders in this day and age, because we are removed from them. That is the simple reality. This is not a denial of the miraculous, but a modicum by which modern man is able to contemplate upon the word of God.

For instance, if a fundamentalist were to meditate upon the phrase, "He will rise in three days". He will be limited by the depth his contemplation can take him. He can certainly be enlightened by all the cultural dynamics that took place in ancient times concerning the eschatological significance of "three days", but ultimately these insights will be blocked by the reality that for the fundamentalist this information is an addendum and has no real impact on the reality that in three literal days someone rose from the dead.

But the neo-orthodox is able to accept this information more intuitively into his meditative process. The phrase "three days" can become a center piece of interpretation and allow ourselves to experience the world that the early believers would have experienced. We can see how significant it would have been to say that a person rose after three days, and that this would have had to of been a watershed for such a community. Whoever this person was he has enormous eschatological significance. The literal meaning of the "three days" becomes insignficant. It is not denied, because it no longer becomes important, and it is no longer allowed to block our contemplation and integration of the object of our meditation. Through this we can see how important this man would have been to the believers of his time, and how important he can be to us.

Higher Cirticism allows for the background cultural influences to become apart of the narrative, and because of this it is allowed to enter into the contemplative process, which is able to integrate the more personal information into our spiritual development. And the mind can accept the results because it is not barricaded by presuppositions of the past or authority.

Higher Criticism allows for a spiritual unified experience and it does so without betraying the modern spirit of man. Fundamentalism rejects this spirit and resorts to authority and fear in order to do it. In the process it adopts the methods it rejects in order to interpret its own Bible. The fundamentalists seek a unified experience through orthodoxy, but cut themselves off from the depths of contemplation. It is because of this that I believe Higher Criticism and Neo-Orthodoxy provide a more genuine and authentic Christianity then fundamentalism.